Sue herself … ? Yes. A Utah woman has filed a lawsuit against herself for damages she apparently caused herself and her husband through her own negligence. As you can imagine, a court already threw out her case on the grounds that she should not be allowed to sue herself. Because that’s absurd:

Bagley lost control of a Range Rover while driving in the desert when she hit a sagebrush which caused the vehicle to flip over. Her husband, 55-year-old Bradley Vom Baur, was thrown from the vehicle and suffered severe injuries that ultimately led to his Jan. 6, 2012 death. . . .

Court documents show that Bagley claims she was negligent for failing to maintain proper control of her vehicle and for not keeping a proper lookout as she was driving. . . .

“If this suit is allowed to continue, a jury would be asked to determine whether Barbara Bagley’s fault caused Barbara Bagley’s own harm,” attorneys Peter Christensen and Kathryn Tunacik Smith said in a motion to dismiss the suit. “The jury would be asked to determine how much money will fairly compensate Barbara Bagley for the harm she caused herself. The jury will be highly confused — it cannot order a person to compensate herself.”

Indeed. And you may be asking why Barbara Bagley even wants to sue herself? I think the answer is as follows:

Bagley’s husband died, leaving her an inheritance she considers inadequate. By suing herself for damages, she stands to get paid (by the estate of her husband) for damages an amount substantially greater than the inheritance that is her rightful due.

If that is in fact the thrust of this lawsuit, and I can think of no other intelligible reason, it is quite diabolical. I think the original court ruling should have been upheld. It seems there is no end to the irrationality of our court system and the litigious absurdity of our populace.